College newspapers usually report the same old fluff. But every now and then, they report some interesting news. This from my very own campus...:
Back in August, 30 RAs replaced nearly 5,100 incandescent bulbs in the building with an energy-saving alternative. The move began a pilot study to determine how compact fluorescent light bulbs can lower electric output in a residence hall.
Months later, Interim Director of Residential Facilities Matt Bierman said the study has found an average savings of $2,000 per month in electric bills compared to last year.
"I think it's been pretty successful," he said. "As more people bring electronics, that's going to cause kilowatts to go up - cell phone chargers, iPod docks, iPods … all that stuff gets plugged in. For the first time in awhile, the kilowatts have dropped."
$2000 per month for one residence hall. Way to go!
You're an economics major and you're celebrating a savings without reference to the incremental investment needed to generate the savings? What did the 5,000 light bulbs cost compared to the bulbs they replaced. What is the payback or NPV of the savings? Looking at the "savings" without reference to the investment useless.
Look at the article. The total cost was $14,000. Payback in 7 months--give or take.
Sorry, I thought this one was obvious. We're talking a roughly 40 cents per bulb per month ($2000/5000bulbs) of saving. If the bulb costs less than $5 it pays for itself in a year.
The real point here is that college dorms are places where light bulbs are used more intensively than in many homes. For one thing, students tend to leave the lights on (they don't pay the light bill so there's no incentive to turn them off). Also, many of the light bulbs are probably in common areas and would be on almost 24 hours a day. The difference between the types of bulbs is in KW per hour when it is on. A dorm where the lights are on 12 to 24 hours a day is going to realize the saving faster than a home that uses the lights 6 to 12 hours a day.
Yes, there are probably some caveats and other things to take into account that would put a margin of error around that 7 months. But in ballpark figures, this one's a no-brainer.
Hi Bill. Good concrete example of savings. An 8 month payback is striking given the fact that replacement is not every 8 months.
However, what trouble me are medical questions on the use of certain lights regarding disruption of brain activity. As we are now better able to become aware of subtle effects, new thought emerge. And our diagnostic expertise is only just taking off in sophistication. But that is a price of living in exciting times...just as there are prices to pay in less exciting times.
I thought I would visit to say hello.
Thanks for stopping by. Interesting point about different lights and brain activity. I know some people just don't like fluorescent light of any kind (compact or regular). Perhaps some people are more sensitive in terms of things that are hard to measure.
But like I've said before, I'm just waiting until LED technology hits the perfect combination of price and quality. Right now there is still a big trade-off. High price for high quality or low price for low quality. That seems to be the choice for LEDs for now. But the day of low price for higher quality is, I think, coming.